[poll; updated] eMMC vs. uSD; modular eMMC

What would you prefer?

  • non replaceable eMMC - willing to pay a premium for it

    Votes: 22 24.7%
  • non replaceable eMMC - assuming roughly equal costs for both solutions

    Votes: 21 23.6%
  • uSD - assuming roughly equal costs for both solutions

    Votes: 23 25.8%
  • uSD - willing to pay a premium for it

    Votes: 23 25.8%

  • Total voters
    89

_wb_

Microbe
Staff member
Joined
Apr 5, 2012
Messages
5,387
Age
38
Location
Brussels, Belgium
^ Not everyone is going to want 200GB of debian packages that don't even fit on a uSD card today and may never.  As others have said, they have loaded debian with as little as 1GB . Only a small number of people are ever going to want 200GB of those packages, and as I said there is no guarantee uSD will advance enough to give you that anyway.
Chances are we'll go for a 16GB eMMC. Replace the number 200 with 16 in the above, or even 32. Does it still make sense?
 

vcoleiro1

Hardcore Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2011
Messages
4,619
^ Yes.  Even the bloated Windows RT + Office + bundled apps needs less than 16GB

The current Pandora OS uses about 1/2 GB
 
Last edited by a moderator:

TrashyMG

Sarcasm Dispenser
Staff member
Joined
Jan 18, 2010
Messages
10,681
Chances are we'll go for a 16GB eMMC. Replace the number 200 with 16 in the above, or even 32. Does it still make sense?
You don't need that much space, no one installs the entire repository..  I AM running debian wheezy armhf on the omap5432 dev board.. I've installed a ton of things on it and still only using ~4GB and that is including about 1GB of test videos.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

_wb_

Microbe
Staff member
Joined
Apr 5, 2012
Messages
5,387
Age
38
Location
Brussels, Belgium
Chances are we'll go for a 16GB eMMC. Replace the number 200 with 16 in the above, or even 32. Does it still make sense?
You don't need that much space, no one installs the entire repository..  I AM running debian wheezy armhf on the omap5432 dev board.. I've installed a ton of things on it and still only using ~4GB and that is including about 1GB of test videos.
The code::blocks PND take ~6GB uncompressed. A full install of LibreOffice takes about 1.5GB (and that's without stuff like clipart and extra fonts, which are things you may want to have too). A full installation of a LaTeX distribution including fonts and documentation can easily be several GB. If you install a couple of browsers like Chromium and Firefox and add some space for plugins and browser cache, it's easily several 100s of MB. I would like to have documentation and maybe a few locales for all my software, and also include files and debug symbols for most of the libraries. Often the documentation takes up more space than the software itself; e.g. the documentation for Lilypond (a music typesetting package I sometimes use) takes ~700MB.

Games like Wesnoth, Frogatto and Widelands would no longer have to be packaged as PNDs since they are in the Debian repository already. Of course someone may still package these as PNDs to help people save space on their internal storage, but in general, that might take some time and effort and not everyone will like to wait for that to happen.

Of course it is possible to install Debian in limited space. When I first installed Debian, I think my total hard disk capacity was 250MB or so. But why would we limit ourselves on purpose?
 

TrashyMG

Sarcasm Dispenser
Staff member
Joined
Jan 18, 2010
Messages
10,681
The code::blocks PND take ~6GB uncompressed.
The codeblocks PND basically has the entire Linux OS installed within it since it bundles a different version glibc and just about everything that needs to be bundled with it.

A full install of LibreOffice takes about 1.5GB
Calling a little BS here, I have Libreoffice fully installed on the omap5 dev board it was no more than 250MB and was included in what I was stating in the prior post.


I run my desktop (Fedora 17) on a 30GB harddrive, only 15GB of which is dedicated to the actual OS. I have absolutely no issues running everything I need, of course big applications/games are installed on an other drive.. which is why we have external SD cards... You are exaggerating a need for more space as if everything will fail if we don't have a 200GB of disk space.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

_wb_

Microbe
Staff member
Joined
Apr 5, 2012
Messages
5,387
Age
38
Location
Brussels, Belgium
The code::blocks PND take ~6GB uncompressed.
The codeblocks PND basically has the entire Linux OS installed within it since it bundles a different version glibc and just about everything that needs to be bundled with it.

A full install of LibreOffice takes about 1.5GB
Calling a little BS here, I have Libreoffice fully installed on the omap5 dev board it was no more than 250MB and was included in what I was stating in the prior post.


I run my desktop (Fedora 17) on a 30GB harddrive, only 15GB of which is dedicated to the actual OS. I have absolutely no issues running everything I need, of course big applications/games are installed on an other drive.. which is why we have external SD cards... You are exaggerating a need for more space as if everything will fail if we don't have a 200GB of disk space.
From http://www.libreoffice.org/download/system-requirements/:

The software and hardware prerequisites for installing on Linux are as follows:

  • Linux kernel version 2.6.18 or higher;
  • glibc2 version 2.5 or higher;
  • gtk version 2.10.4 or higher;
  • Pentium-compatible PC (Pentium III, Athlon or more-recent system recommended);
  • 256Mb RAM (512Mb RAM recommended);
  • Up to 1.55Gb available hard disk space;
  • X Server with 1024x768 resolution (higher resolution recommended), with at least 256 colors;
  • Gnome 2.16 or higher, with the gail 1.8.6 and at-spi 1.7 packages (required for support for assistive technology [AT] tools), or another compatible GUI (such as KDE, among others).
For certain features of the software - but not most - Java is required. Java is notably required for Base.
Maybe I am exaggerating a bit, and I agree that 16GB is probably plenty of space, for most people, today.
 

comradekingu

Glowing ember
Joined
Apr 15, 2011
Messages
5,048
Website
portfolio.anotheragency.no
Internal space is also for whatever storage you dont want to not take away from the modularity of the two fullsize SD cards. That is a cap someone will meet at 16GB. Thus not an option on emmc because that is price limited to 16 or 32 since its a for everyone option.
 

_wb_

Microbe
Staff member
Joined
Apr 5, 2012
Messages
5,387
Age
38
Location
Brussels, Belgium
If µSD is too slow, then eMMC is not going to make a big difference unless you make everyone pay for it (a cheap eMMC is not significantly faster than a cutting edge µSD card), and then µSD+µSSD would be better (expandable and faster).

If µSD is fast enough (for me it is), then µSD-only is the best option.

I would only agree to use eMMC if it is modular (like on the ODROID), available in various sizes at competitive prices for a long period of time (i.e. forward-compatible with a Pyra successor), and easy for the user to replace (having to use a screwdriver is ok, but no more "skills" than that ;) ).

Or if some way can be found to combine eMMC with an internal µSD slot without sacrificing speed.
 

Exophase

Nothing good will ever come of Exophase.
Joined
Sep 21, 2006
Messages
10,308
Age
36
Location
Cleveland OH
I understand the speed problem is one of the reasons some people want eMMC, but can you imigine something like this as your main storage?
I'm not seeing the allure of having all of that "main" storage vs putting a 256GB (probably 512MB soon) card in both of your full SD slots. Yes there is stuff that makes more sense on the fixed boot volume but almost no one is going to be installing dozens of GB of Debian packages on this.
 

_wb_

Microbe
Staff member
Joined
Apr 5, 2012
Messages
5,387
Age
38
Location
Brussels, Belgium
I understand the speed problem is one of the reasons some people want eMMC, but can you imigine something like this as your main storage?
I'm not seeing the allure of having all of that "main" storage vs putting a 256GB (probably 512MB soon) card in both of your full SD slots. Yes there is stuff that makes more sense on the fixed boot volume but almost no one is going to be installing dozens of GB of Debian packages on this.
I agree. However, maybe in 10-15 years, when we can put 2TB cards in both slots, a 512GB µSD card in the internal slot seems reasonable.
 

God Ginrai

Godmaster
Joined
Nov 27, 2005
Messages
5,416
Website
Visit site
I understand the speed problem is one of the reasons some people want eMMC, but can you imigine something like this as your main storage?
I'm not seeing the allure of having all of that "main" storage vs putting a 256GB (probably 512MB soon) card in both of your full SD slots. Yes there is stuff that makes more sense on the fixed boot volume but almost no one is going to be installing dozens of GB of Debian packages on this.
Maybe, but I wouldn't mind the extra space. However, my main concern is the ability to replace my internal memory once it dies. microSD offers this.

-God Ginrai
 

xiongxioi

Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2012
Messages
434
By then we will have the Dragonbox one, which comes with ED's brand of virtual reality glasses and a cup holder.  :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Granitehead

Advanced Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
3,011
By then we will have the Dragonbox one, which comes with ED's brand of virtual reality glasses and a cup holder.  :)
Taking your "successor will be available" argument without the bullshit ( ;-) ), it isn't valid.Many people here still use consoles from 20 or more years ago. Don't you want the Pyra to become one of those long living consoles too?

And maybe you don't want to upgrade after 3 years or so when the potential storage capacity multiplied again but keep using the same device without having to compromise because non-replaceable internal storage is too small now?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

thatgui

Advanced Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2009
Messages
3,048
Many people here still use consoles from 20 or more years ago.
If that was really the case they would not play their games via emulators on the Pandora, but on the real console. Most people are interested in the games, not the hardware itself - though some seem to need the hardware to get more nostalgic. But the Pandora/Pyra isn't really comparable to that kind of machines, as most software wasn't developed specifically for the Pandora, and as it has a rather generic Linux base, so porting them to newer devices does not take a lot of effort (unlike developing an emulator) as - except some rare cases, like drastic - the source is available.
Don't you want the Pyra to become one of those long living consoles too?

And maybe you don't want to upgrade after 3 years or so when the potential storage capacity multiplied again but keep using the same device without having to compromise because non-replaceable internal storage is too small now?
A 20 year, even a 10 year time frame is hard to predict, a lot of things can fail over such a huge time frame (like nobody really knows wether the display will still be usbale then, or if lead free solder points will prove to be reliable). Which is also different from older consoles as many have failing parts (like the Sega Gamegear), but unlike the Pandora, most of that parts can be replaced easily.But even if the internal memory would be only thing that failed after that time, I would still have two SD-Card slots to compensate.

While I like the idea of a "lasting" device I doubt I (and I guess most of the other people here too) will be using the Pyra 10 years from now.
 

God Ginrai

Godmaster
Joined
Nov 27, 2005
Messages
5,416
Website
Visit site
Many people here still use consoles from 20 or more years ago.
If that was really the case they would not play their games via emulators on the Pandora, but on the real console.
That's actually not true. I play my emulated games on the Pandora because it's a handheld form factor. Whenever I'm near the original console, I will tend to play my games on the original unless I want to be able to play from a position that I wouldn't be able to see the TV screen or get the controller cords to reach.

-God Ginrai
 

God Ginrai

Godmaster
Joined
Nov 27, 2005
Messages
5,416
Website
Visit site
Whenever I'm near the original console, I will tend to play my games on the original
Well I don't, now what ?And there are a lot of people around here that did not even own the console themselves.
Of course. But you were suggesting that T4b's comment that many people here play on their old consoles was false. As proof, you tried to use the fact that people play emulators on the Pandora. To prove that that is irrelevant, I supplied my own experience of playing on both systems, which supports T4b's conjecture. Just because people play emulators on their Pandora does not mean that they don't play on their original consoles as well.

-God Ginrai
 

thatgui

Advanced Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2009
Messages
3,048
Of course. But you were suggesting that T4b's comment that many people here play on their old consoles was false. As proof, you tried to use the fact that people play emulators on the Pandora. To prove that that is irrelevant, I supplied my own experience of playing on both systems, which supports T4b's conjecture. Just because people play emulators on their Pandora does not mean that they don't play on their original consoles as well.
I never denied that people do play titles on real hardware - I was adressing t4bs post spefically: he is using the word "many" not "all". You gave your usage example and I gave mine, so we have basically a tie as both of us can't prove that the other one is with the majority - thats why I put the "now what" in my answer.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

God Ginrai

Godmaster
Joined
Nov 27, 2005
Messages
5,416
Website
Visit site
So we're agreed that T4b's comment cannot currently be disproven? I didn't realize that's what you meant by the "now what".

-God Ginrai
 
Top